Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Syria’s ancient sites looted as artifacts flood online markets

Al Mayadeen | June 8, 2025

Syria’s archaeological heritage is under mounting threat as looters descend on ancient sites like Palmyra, digging for artifacts that are quickly trafficked and sold online. A recent report by The Guardian reveals that antiquities theft has surged dramatically since the December collapse of the Assad regime, with online sales accelerating through platforms like Facebook.

Palmyra, which had already been subjected to destruction in 2015 at the hands of ISIS, is now being ravaged again, this time by opportunistic grave robbers and organized networks. Armed with tools, looters target 2,000-year-old crypts, leaving behind craters and shattered remains. “Once the archaeological layers are disturbed, it becomes impossible to reconstruct the past,” said Mohammed al-Fares, a local activist and member of Heritage for Peace.

According to the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research Project (ATHAR), more than 30% of the 1,500 documented Syrian antiquities cases since 2012 have occurred in just the last few months. The group says this is the largest and fastest wave of trafficking they’ve recorded from any country to date.

Western demand driving artifact theft

ATHAR co-director Katie Paul highlighted the role of social media, especially Facebook, in facilitating these illicit transactions. Despite Facebook’s 2020 ban on antiquities trading, Paul says the platform still hosts dozens of active groups selling ancient coins, mosaics, and statues, many operating in public view. In one case, a seller livestreamed from an excavation site, asking viewers for digging advice.

“This is the fastest we’ve ever seen artifacts move,” Paul noted. “What used to take a year now takes just two weeks.”

Many looters are ordinary Syrians driven by poverty, but others are part of criminal operations using heavy machinery to excavate entire sites. Videos from areas like Tall Shaykh Ali show rows of deep, uniform pits, which are evidence of professional digging. Once removed, antiquities are smuggled to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Turkey, then laundered with fake paperwork before entering Western auction houses and museums.

Syria’s interim government has responded with limited tools, threatening looters with prison time and offering rewards for turning in artifacts, though enforcement remains weak. With 90% of the population living in poverty and the country still recovering from 15 years of war, authorities face immense challenges in protecting cultural sites.

Experts like Paul and ATHAR co-founder Amr al-Azm argue that the ultimate solution lies outside Syria. “We focus too much on the supply side,” Azm said. “If there were no demand in the West, there would be far less incentive to destroy Syria’s heritage.”

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Corruption | , | 2 Comments

Lindsey Graham and Other US Congressmen Purportedly Used Ukraine as Personal Cash Cow

Sputnik – 06.06.2025

A group of US lawmakers has been using Ukraine to enrich themselves, retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson tells Sputnik, citing whistleblowers.

About 23 members of the US Congress, including Senator Lindsey Graham, helped themselves to the money coming from Ukraine, the whistleblowers claim.

“We’re not talking a few thousand dollars. We’re talking much more than that,” Johnson remarks.

He does point out, however, that these are just allegations at the moment, and that it is up for US authorities to properly investigate these claims.

“It’s not going to take six months to do this investigation, it can be done in a much shorter time frame. So we’ll see what comes of it,” Johnson predicts.

He also argues that it will be easier to make the results of this investigation public “once this whole debacle that is the war in Ukraine, comes to fruition, as the total defeat of NATO becomes apparent.”

June 6, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

British Council Exposed: Soft Power and Spying Tool Disguised as Cultural Outreach

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 05.06.2025

The FSB has urged Russia’s foreign partners to investigate the subversive activities of the British Council in their countries. This is why.

Education and Culture Front Organization

Created in 1934 by the British government, the British Council’s public facing image is about the promotion of English language learning, recruitment for UK universities, educational support for teachers abroad, cultural and academic partnerships and exchanges.

In reality, as Russia’s FSB has revealed, Council activities include:

  • targeting youth leaders and elites to try and sway them to support Western and British interests
  • spying, from informal monitoring of the socio-economic situation inside Russia to military intel gathering in the conflict zone in Ukraine

NED’s Granddaddy

While Soros, USAID the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other US soft power alphabet agencies were only able to set up shop in Eastern Europe in the 1980s or after 1991, the British Council had been active in the region since WWII. Expelled from the USSR in 1946, it returned in 1959 (restricted to Moscow).

After the USSR’s demise in 1991, the Council set up offices in as many as 15 Russian cities, and scores more in Ukraine, the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

The Council terminated its activities in Russia in 2018, and was officially ruled an undesirable organization by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office on Thursday, but the FSB says it continued Russia operations long after its supposed exit, engaging in:

  • recruiting staff at top Russian universities in at least four regions to spread propaganda to young people
  • targeting Russians living abroad in influence ops, in the hopes that they will return home and influence policy once the Ukraine conflict ends
  • collecting socio-economic and military intelligence on Kherson region using UK-based refugees

Global Spider’s Web

With a $1.7B budget and offices in over 100 countries, the Council is active:

  • in Britain’s former colonial empire (especially India)
  • in the EU as a British soft power tool post-Brexit
  • among BRICS bloc nations
  • Belarus kicked them out in 2000. Iran did so in 2009

“We would like to address partners from countries friendly to Russia: by flirting with the British and creating favorable conditions for organizations like the British Council, allowing it to work with youth, future leaders and politicians, such countries risk losing control over very important socio-political processes. Therefore, we recommend that you carefully look into the work of the British Council in your countries and, notwithstanding pressures from London, mitigate the negative consequences of its work at an early stage,” the FSB said in Thursday’s statement.

British Council’s Cousin: An Oligarch’s Private Soft Power Tool

Along with the British Council, the FSB also reviewed the subversive work of Oxford Russia Fund, a charity group which entered Russia in 2006, ostensibly funding “humanitarian programs” in education, and scholarships to Russian students studying in the UK.

In reality, it was a front for former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s push to create a new generation of pro-West “young leaders” in Russia. Khodorkovsky, notably, has long dreamed of a color revolution in Russia.

The Oxford Russia Fund was ruled undesirable in 2021.

June 6, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Russian Foreign Intel Service Vet Blows the Lid Off Britain’s Secret Soft Power Recruitment Strategy

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 05.06.2025

Britain is a master in the use of public and non-profit organizations for intelligence, deploying them “for centuries,” and Russia a top target, SVR Lt. Gen. (ret.) Leonid Reshetnikov told Sputnik, commenting on the FSB’s warning to Russia’s foreign partners on Thursday about the British Council’s subversive activities.

“Russia has been the main focus of this work since the time of Ivan Grozny. I say this in all seriousness,” Reshetnikov said, adding that the British have had “many years, many centuries of experience” in indirect forms of intelligence collection.

How Are Agents Recruited? A Primer

“They actively use the scientific and teaching fields. When our educators go to the UK or other countries where the British are active, they should always keep in mind that they will be studied, that informal, friendly and trusting relationships will be formed with them,” the veteran ex-secret agent explained.

The task is “studying the mood in scientific, student and teaching circles, selecting people, not necessarily recruiting (i.e. you are an agent, we pay you and you act), but making offers, for example, to give lectures, publish a brochure or a book, visit London, give lectures there, etc.”

Actually recruiting agents is the most blunt approach, and often not necessary to extract the information, facts, assessments or intentions the British intel services are looking for.

“It’s enough to have a circle of agents of influence, a circle of people who are intellectually, ideologically, culturally attached to London, to the English way of life. It’s very easy to use them in a straightforward manner. That’s the job,” Reshetnikov said.

In this area, the veteran former spy emphasized that the British are even more capable than their transatlantic cousins in the CIA.

“It’s best to keep fewer British NGOs in your country. The fewer the better, especially British ones. This is one of the most challenging intelligence services in the world to face,” Reshetnikov emphasized.

June 6, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

EU financing ‘extremism’ – Georgia

RT | June 6, 2025

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has accused the EU of inciting and financing extremism in his country. The claim comes amid a deepening rift between Tbilisi and Brussels over alleged “democratic backsliding.”

Kobakhidze insisted on Thursday that his government has “indisputable” evidence that Western actors are backing anti-government protests in the country.

”We prove this with facts, videos, and [EU] financing practices. We have direct facts about how these people are financing extremism in our country. We talk to them with facts, but they respond with general phrases, and more often lies. This is sad,” Kobakhidze said, as cited by Rustavi 2.

Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili echoed the charge, stating that “extremism in Georgia is supported and financed from the budgets of the EU.” He added that he had written to EU Ambassador Pawel Herczynski detailing the accusations but had yet to receive a reply.

The ruling Georgian Dream party, which secured a decisive parliamentary majority in October 2024, has accused Western powers of interfering in the country’s domestic politics under the guise of “democracy promotion.” Officials in Tbilisi have drawn parallels to the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and say similar tactics are now being used to destabilize Georgia for refusing to adopt a confrontational stance against Russia in the Ukraine conflict.

Following Georgian Dream’s victory, a coalition of pro-Western parties alleged fraud and launched protests to force the government’s resignation. EU and US officials voiced support for the opposition, which Georgian leaders denounced as foreign meddling.

Brussels has also led a coordinated campaign against Georgia’s foreign influence transparency law, legislation that requires political organizations to disclose substantial foreign funding. Although similar laws exist across the West, the European External Action Service claimed the legislation in Georgia was “a serious setback for democracy” and warned it could “threaten the country’s EU path.”

Tensions spiked last month when French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a joint statement on Georgia’s Independence Day, accusing the government of “democratic backsliding.” Papuashvili dismissed the statement as “shameful,” saying it disrespected both the state and its people.

Georgia was granted EU candidate status in December 2023 but has since suspended accession talks, citing Brussels’ increasingly coercive tone. The government, however, insists that it remains committed to eventual EU membership.

June 6, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Gaza security service warns mercenaries are located east of Rafah

MEMO | June 5, 2025

A security source in the Palestinian resistance said the security services are closely monitoring the movements of “mercenary” groups operating with direct support from the Israeli occupation forces and stationed in areas under its control east of Rafah city in the southern Gaza Strip.

A circular published yesterday on the Al-Hares security platform indicated that these groups are engaged in activities that serve the Israeli occupation’s objectives, including conducting field reconnaissance missions and gathering intelligence information. “They also participate in sweeping buildings and clearing areas, and attempt to lure resistance members into revealing their locations and combat tactics,” it added.

According to the circular, the groups have also set up checkpoints to screen those suspected of being affiliated with the Palestinian resistance.

The sources confirmed the resistance’s determination to pursue anyone proven to be involved in “mercenary” activities or “highway banditry” and warned citizens against being deceived by offers to return to areas controlled by the Israeli occupation forces in return for collaborating with the enemy.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Netanyahu does not deny arming ISIS-affiliated group to fight Hamas

Al Mayadeen | June 5, 2025

Former Israeli Security Minister Avigdor Liberman has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of secretly authorizing the transfer of weapons to an armed criminal group affiliated with the terrorist so-called “Islamic State” in Gaza without cabinet approval.

In remarks to the Kan public broadcaster, Liberman, who leads the opposition Yisrael Beytenu party, said the weapons were supplied to a group of militants near the Karem Abu Salem crossing, in an area currently under Israeli military control.

“The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister,” he stated.

“To my knowledge this did not go through approval by the cabinet,” he added.

Abu Shabab clan’s reputation and recent activity

While Liberman did not name the group directly, he appeared to be referencing the Abu Shabab clan, an armed faction in Gaza reportedly opposed to Hamas.

According to Tel Aviv University researcher Michael Milshtein, the group is known in Gaza for drug trafficking, theft, and looting humanitarian aid convoys.

Footage published online in recent days, including by clan leader Yasser Abu Shabab, shows members wearing military-style uniforms emblazoned with the Palestinian flag and the label “Counter-Terrorism Mechanism.”

Security establishment kept in the dark?

Liberman added that the head of the Shin Bet is aware of the weapons transfers but questioned the level of involvement or knowledge within the Israeli occupation military.

“I don’t know how much the IDF chief of staff was in on it,” he said, referring to the Israeli military.

Netanyahu’s office does not deny Liberman allegations

In response to Liberman’s claims, Netanyahu’s office issued a statement defending the government’s multi-pronged approach to defeating Hamas.

“Israel is working to defeat Hamas through various means, based on the recommendations of all the heads of the security establishment,” the statement read.

However, it notably did not deny the allegations raised by Liberman.

June 5, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Indonesia chief accuses foreign-backed NGOs of fueling division

Al Mayadeen | June 2, 2025

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto used his Pancasila Day address to issue a stark warning about the threat of foreign interference, specifically accusing foreign-funded NGOs of acting as vehicles for division and soft-power manipulation. His remarks echoed growing global concerns over the use of civil society organizations to exert influence on domestic politics, often under the banner of democratic reform.

“They [foreign countries] are still provoking us. They are funding NGOs to fuel division … I am not telling Indonesians not to trust other countries, but we must not let ourselves be manipulated. We remember what our founding fathers said: the Indonesian people must stand on their own feet,” Prabowo declared.

The president’s warning comes amid heightened scrutiny of several Indonesian NGOs and media outlets accused of pushing foreign-aligned narratives. Although no specific organizations were named, the administration’s message aligns with broader concerns seen in other parts of the world, where governments have taken steps to curb foreign-funded groups involved in political advocacy.

Sovereignty Shield

Analysts draw parallels between Prabowo’s remarks and cases in countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, where “color revolutions”, protest movements aimed at changing the leadership, were supported by NGOs funded by Western entities, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID.

While often portrayed as democratic uprisings, these movements have been criticized by several governments as externally orchestrated attempts to reshape sovereign policy from the outside.

Responding to such concerns, countries like Russia have enacted “foreign agent” laws requiring NGOs receiving overseas funding and engaging in political work to register as foreign agents. Kyrgyzstan and Hungary have also adopted similar restrictions.

Prabowo’s rhetoric now places Indonesia within this rising global tide of states seeking to insulate their domestic affairs from covert foreign pressure.

Ideological Resilience

Drawing from Indonesia’s own experience of colonization, Prabowo said that foreign destabilization efforts have not vanished; they have simply evolved into more discreet forms, such as ideological funding and narrative engineering.

“Disagreements should not become a reason for conflict. This is what foreign countries hope for,” he warned, calling for social cohesion in the face of such influence.

The speech served not only as a condemnation of foreign interference but also as a reaffirmation of Pancasila, Indonesia’s state philosophy born in the wake of independence from Dutch rule in 1945.

Composed of five pillars, belief in one God, civilized humanity, national unity, wisdom-led democracy, and social justice, Pancasila remains a unifying framework in a diverse and populous archipelago.

National Fortification

Prabowo noted that these principles must serve as a shield against modern threats to sovereignty. He called on Indonesians to deepen their commitment to national unity and self-reliance, framing these values as essential defenses against foreign agendas that seek to exploit social fractures.

While the speech drew support from nationalist sectors, some observers cautioned against the potential suppression of independent civil society voices.

Nonetheless, many view the move as a calculated effort to consolidate national cohesion and ensure that policymaking remains firmly in the hands of Indonesians.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption | | Leave a comment

Another Neoconservative Bites the Dust: The Life and Legacy of Michael Ledeen

By Jose Alberto Nino – The Occidental Observer – June 1, 2025

Michael Ledeen, the man who urged America to “to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall” every decade, met an end that many of his critics would call overdue. On May 17, 2025, Ledeen died at the age of 83. marking the passing of one of the last influential Jewish neoconservatives of his generation.

Ledeen obtained a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied under the Jewish German-born historian George Mosse. He took a particular interest in Italian fascism and wrote a doctoral dissertation that eventually became “Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928–1936,” published in 1972, which explored Benito Mussolini’s efforts to create a Fascist international in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

His academic career began at Washington University in St. Louis, where he was an assistant professor of history from 1967–1973, before becoming a visiting professor at the University of Rome from 1973–1977. Ledeen authored over 35 books throughout his career, including works on fascism, European history, and Middle Eastern politics.

His influence was most felt in the realm of national security though. Throughout his career, Ledeen held multiple advisory roles within the U.S. government, including as a consultant to the National Security Council, a special advisor to the Secretary of State, a consultant to the Department of Defense, and a consultant to the under-secretary of political affairs. Ledeen was an active member of numerous think tanks and regime-change advocacy organizations such as the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI), American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Additionally, he has been published in numerous philosemitic conservative outlets such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard. His influence extended beyond formal roles. According to the Washington Post, he was the only “full-time” international affairs analyst frequently consulted by Karl Rove, the chief strategist of then-President George W. Bush.

Ledeen’s career was not free of controversy, however. In 1980, Ledeen co-authored articles with Belgian-American journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in The New Republic alleging Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy Carter, accepted payments from Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and met with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. He made those same assertions before a Senate subcommittee as the 1980 presidential election quickly approached. These claims, published weeks before the presidential election, reignited the “Billygate” scandal.

A 1985 Wall Street Journal investigation later confirmed that the stories were part of a disinformation campaign executed by Italy’s military intelligence agency (SISMI) to hurt Carter’s presidential re-election campaign. Italian intelligence officer Francesco Pazienza testified that Ledeen received $120,000 for his role and operated under the codename “Z-3.” Pazienza, who was convicted for extortion in connection to the operation, described Ledeen as a key figure behind the dissemination of false narratives.

Additionally, Ledeen was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration. As a consultant to National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, Ledeen facilitated back-channel communications between U.S. officials, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. In this case, the Reagan administration was clandestinely negotiating hostage releases in Lebanon via arms sales to Iran, a scheme that bypassed Congressional oversight and later became a major scandal. Ledeen defended Ghorbanifar despite widespread skepticism about his reliability, subsequently detailing his perspective in the book “Perilous Statecraft.” While he never faced criminal charges, Ledeen’s role in Iran-Contra showcased his willingness to operate in the shadows, ethics be damned.

Like many Jews in the neoconservative movement, Ledeen has a long career of advocating for regime change in the Middle East.

Ledeen was one of the most vocal Jewish neoconservatives lobbying for the removal of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Along with other neoconservative luminaries such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Ledeen signed “An Open Letter to the President” in 1998, urging Bill Clinton to topple Iraq’s Baathist regime.

Similar to other Jewish officials in the national security establishment, Ledeen was an unapologetic champion of using hard military power. Jewish neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg coined the “Leeden Doctrine” after reflecting on a speech he attended in the 1990s at the American Enterprise Institute. In that speech, Ledeen was alleged to have said:

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.

In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ledeen was one of the most energetic proponents of using military force against the country. Ledeen wrote a piece at the National Review critical of former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who advised against invading Iraq. Instead of exercising restraint, Ledeen called for turning the entire Middle East “into a cauldron”, as he explained in more detail:

Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

Ledeen’s hawkish stance on Iran was also a lifelong constant. He labeled the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini a “theocratic fascist”, and as Jewish political commentator Peter Beinart observed about Ledeen’s Middle Eastern political analysis, every problem in the region “traces back to Tehran.” Despite opposing a direct invasion of Iran in his later years, Ledeen championed aggressive support for Iranian dissidents and preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities if diplomacy failed to get Iran to kowtow to the United States.

Michael Ledeen’s death marks the end of a career that Jewish journalist Eli Lake described as one of “America’s most courageous historians and journalists.” His friend David Goldman, a Jewish international relations commentator associated with the Claremont Institute, wrote that Ledeen’s “personal contribution to America’s victory in the Cold War is far greater than the public record shows.”

Ledeen’s legacy is undeniably one of steadfast advocacy for Jewish interests within the American conservative movement. For those who saw his influence as a barrier to a more authentically gentile Right, his passing, like David Horowitz’s, may indeed be viewed as an opportunity for change as more of the Jewish founders of neoconservatism and their progeny exit the plane of the living.

For this author, Ledeen will certainly not be missed.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire

Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj

By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025

In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.

But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.

China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.

So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence.

For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora’s Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today.

Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data!

Concentration of wealth and alumni networks

The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers.

Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population.

These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater’s admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle.

The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale.

Rankings, graft, and ominous trends

Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families.

According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable.

Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks.

Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense?

Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard.

With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn’t someone remark that “behind every financial disaster, there’s a Harvard economist?”

Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that ‘learning’ is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand

The credentialism trap

When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward.

If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year.

Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving ‘best practices’. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work.

Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me.

Lessons from the Raj

As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI.

That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia.

India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let’s compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China’s population at the time.

A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance.

Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society’s lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here).

These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an “unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.” Just check out the credentials of the ‘experts’ involved here. Shouldn’t this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts?

A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India’s income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule.

A way out?

As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period.

I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.

Dr. Mathew Maavak researches systems science, global risks, geopolitics, strategic foresight, governance and Artificial Intelligence.

May 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Report: Biden May Not Have Even Known About Detrimental Climate Policies of his Own Administration

Power The Future | May 28, 2025

While the Biden administration was quick to tout and implement its aggressive climate agenda, a closer look raises a more troubling question: did President Joe Biden ever even know about some of the sweeping actions taken in his name?

We reviewed eight major executive actions that fundamentally reshaped American energy policy, from banning offshore drilling to invoking emergency powers to boost solar manufacturing, and found no evidence that President Biden ever personally spoke about any of them. Not in a press conference. Not in a speech. Not even a video statement.

These aren’t minor procedural documents, memos, or messaging documents. They include:

  • Clean AI Data Centers EO (Jan. 14, 2025): Gave the Departments of Defense and Energy the green light to lease public land for AI data centers, provided they’re powered by “clean energy,” of course.
  • Offshore Drilling Ban (Jan. 6 2025): Pulled over 625 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf out of future oil and gas leasing. Biden never mentioned it on camera.
  • EO 14143 (Jan. 16 2025): A last-days-of-the-administration decree making AmeriCorps alumni eligible for preferential federal hiring, potentially reshaping the makeup of the federal workforce without public debate and allowing eco-left to insert themselves in the administration.
  • Arctic Drilling Ban (March 13, 2023): Prohibited oil and gas leasing in sensitive areas of the Arctic. Notably timed just after approval of the Willow Project, this was a political fig leaf, not a presidential priority.
  • Defense Production Act Invocation (June 6, 2022): Used Cold War-era emergency powers to push solar panels and heat pumps without a peep from Biden himself.
  • EO 14027 (May 7, 2021): Created a “Climate Change Support Office” buried in bureaucracy, giving climate staffers yet another taxpayer-funded silo of influence.
  • EO 14030 (May 20, 2021): Ordered all federal agencies to assess “climate-related financial risk,” laying the groundwork for ESG-style investing mandates across the government.
  • EO 14057 (Dec. 8, 2021): Committed the entire federal government to net-zero emissions by 2050 and required 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030—one of the most expansive decarbonization orders in history.

After uncovering this slew of major executive actions reshaping America’s energy landscape that were never publicly addressed by President Biden, Power The Future Executive Director stated: “Americans deserve to know which unelected staffers or radical unnamed activists implemented sweeping change through an autopen. The Biden energy agenda destroyed livelihoods of energy workers and fueled the record-high inflation that broke the budgets of millions of Americans. The question is simple, and deserves an immediate answer: what did Joe Biden know, and when did he know it?”

Despite their massive consequences for American energy producers, workers, and consumers, President Biden made no public comment, on camera or to press, about any of these actions.

This lack of public acknowledgment begs the question of whether these orders were auto-penned by eco-left policy by ghostwriters?

Americans deserve to know whether their president is making energy policy or whether it’s being run by anonymous staffers in federal agencies and activist NGOs behind closed doors.

When executive power is used to shut down energy production, rewire the economy, and restructure the federal workforce, the American people should at least expect their elected leader to own it.

Instead, we’re left with a pile of signed orders and zero accountability. Power The Future will continue investigating the true origins of these impactful policies.

May 29, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Washington’s “Golden Dome” – Multi-Trillion Tax Dollar Heist at Best, Dangerous Provocation at Worst

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – May 25, 2025

US President Donald Trump has announced his administration has chosen the architecture for the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, claiming it will cost $175 billion and be operational in “less than three years” with a “success rate close to 100%.”

During President Trump’s announcement on May 21, 2025, it was claimed the Golden Dome will consist of technology deployed across land, sea, and space capable of intercepting hypersonic, ballistic, and advanced cruise missiles, “even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.” 

Former-US President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program (also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative) was repeatedly cited during the announcement. That program sought to use space-based weapons to void the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” allowing the US to conduct a nuclear or non-nuclear first strike on another nation and avoid what had otherwise been an inevitable nuclear retaliation that would destroy both nations in the process.

Specifically, because mutually assured destruction was seen as a better deterrence against a first strike by one nuclear-armed nation against another, along with concerns over costs, technological limitations, and then-existing arms control treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the initiative was never fully realized.

Granting the US Impunity to Attack, Not “Defend” Itself

US Space Force General Michael Guetlein, picked to lead the Golden Dome project and present during its announcement, would claim:

As you’re aware, our adversaries have become very capable and very intent on holding the homeland at risk. While we have been focused on keeping the peace overseas, our adversaries have been quickly modernizing their nuclear forces, building out ballistic missiles capable of hosting multiple warheads, building out hypersonic missiles capable of attacking the United States within an hour and traveling at 6,000 mph, building cruise missiles that can navigate around our radar and our defenses and building submarines that can sneak up on our shores and worse yet, building space weapons. It is time that we change that equation and start doubling down on the protection of the homeland.

Yet what General Guetlein calls “keeping the peace overseas,” is in reality the United States encroaching along the borders and shores of nations like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.

This includes the stationing of not only missile defense systems like Patriot, THAAD, and the Aegis Ashore system in close proximity to these nations in violation of the ABM treaty the US has since abandoned, but also first-strike offensive weapons like the Typhon missile launcher capable of firing both Standard SM-6 anti-air missiles, but also ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles previously prohibited under the INF treaty the US has also since abandoned.

For example, the US has positioned THAAD systems in both the Middle East and Asia, and its Typhon missile system is currently stationed in the Philippines with additional units on the way, specifically aimed at China.

Beyond the global-spanning military footprint of the United States, Washington is also preparing for or already directing multiple proxy wars against these nations.

The conflict in Ukraine was entirely engineered by the United States, beginning with Kiev’s political capture in 2014, the training and arming of Ukraine’s military, and the capture, reorganization, and direction of Ukraine’s intelligence agencies by the US Central Intelligence Agency.

The US has been waging war and proxy war against Iran for decades, including invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq right on its borders, invading and overthrowing the government of Iran’s ally Syria, the waging of war on Yemen-based Ansar Allah – also an Iranian ally. The US also maintains constant financial, political, and military support for Israel, which has repeatedly attacked Iran and its allies.

And despite officially recognizing Taiwan as part of “One China,” the United States has continued supporting separatist political parties administering Taipei, is arming local military forces, and is even stationing US troops on the island province itself.

All of this has forced Russia, Iran, China, and other nations to respond by bolstering military spending, increasing research and development into missile technology, and the creation of credible deterrents against decades-spanning US aggression and proxy war along and even within their borders.

While the Trump administration depicts the Golden Dome as necessary to “forever end the missile threat to the American homeland,” it is instead being built to enable the US to forever threaten other nations around the globe with its missiles.

Dubious Claims About Golden Dome’s “Near 100%” Success 

At one point during the Golden Dome’s announcement, US President Trump would claim:

I will tell you an adversary told me, a very big adversary, told me the most brilliant people in the world are in Silicon Valley. He said, “we cannot duplicate them. We can’t.”

He also claimed:

We have things that nobody else can have. You see what we’ve done helping Israel. You probably wouldn’t have in Israel. They launched probably 500 missiles all together and I think one half of a missile got through and that was only falling to the ground as scrap metal.

Except none of this is true.

If President Trump is referring to the 2024 Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel, up to 200 missiles were fired, with dozens if not scores of them circumventing Israeli missile defenses and striking targets, including dozens striking and damaging Israel’s Nevatim Airbase alone, according to NPR.

No air or missile defense system has a “success rate close to 100%.” 

While any particular system may have a “success rate close to 100%” intercepting individual targets, retaliatory strikes are planned specifically to include a large enough number of missiles, drones, and other projectiles to saturate a defense system’s ability to intercept them all during a single attack. This means that while many incoming targets will be intercepted, many others will not, and critical targets will inevitably be struck and destroyed.

Regarding the state of US missile defense technology, unless President Trump is referring to undisclosed innovations, nothing the US currently is known to possess in terms of air and missile defense systems consists of “things that nobody else can have.”

And while in the past Silicon Valley drove unparalleled advances in technology contributing to a decisive military advantage for the US, the gap has since drastically closed and in some instances is widening in favor of nations like Russia and China.

The conflict in Ukraine, for example, has demonstrated glaring Russian advantages in several key areas that void the entire premise the Golden Dome is predicated on. Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of producing both larger quantities of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as layered integrated air defense systems and at a fraction of the cost the US and its European partners spend on arms and ammunition production.

Russia’s advantage is so great, it prompted the first-ever US National Defense Industrial Strategy in 2022.

The paper admitted the US (and the rest of the collective West) suffers from a bloated, inefficient military industrial base incapable of meeting the demands of the type of large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare taking place in Ukraine and likely to take place in future conflicts with either Russia or China.

As previously reported, the paper lays out a multitude of problems plaguing the US military industrial base including a lack of surge capacity, an inadequate workforce, overdependence on offshore downstream suppliers, as well as insufficient “demand signals” to motivate private industry partners to produce what’s needed, in the quantities needed, when it is needed.

In fact, the majority of the problems identified by the report involved private industry and its unwillingness to meet national security requirements because they were not profitable.

Nations like Russia and China do not rely on private industry partners for national defense programs. Much of the industrial power researching, developing, and mass-producing arms and ammunition in these countries takes place within state-owned enterprises. Because national defense is the chief priority of these enterprises, money is invested whether it is profitable or not.

This is what allows Russian and Chinese industry to maintain huge workforces, facilities, and tooling even when production is reduced, while private industry in the West would slash all three to maximize profitability. The first model allows a nation to surge the production of arms and ammunition on short notice – the other requires strong enough “demand signals” to justify the time-consuming process of building up the levels of all three – a process that can take years.

None of the problems described regarding the US military industrial base have been addressed since the National Defense Industrial Strategy was published in 2022. Corporations like Lockheed, Raytheon, L3Harris, and newer companies like Anduril slated to play a role in the proposed Golden Dome system continue to pursue a strictly for-profit model that will create the same disparity in quantity and quality seen playing out on and over the battlefield in Ukraine.

This leaves the likelihood the Golden Dome – like all other modern US military programs – will fall far short of stated expectations because of the fraud, waste, and abuse that defines US military industrial production.

The ultimate irony is that while the Golden Dome is sold to the public as “protecting” America, vast sums of public money that could actually improve the lives of Americans at home through infrastructure, education, and healthcare, will instead be siphoned off by demonstrably incompetent and corrupt arms manufacturers, all in an attempt to enhance Washington’s ability to menace the rest of the world with greater impunity – not protect the US at home.

The rest of the world will predictably react to the Golden Dome by creating their own means to defend themselves and retaliate against the US if attacked, making Americans not only less safe, but in the process of building the Golden Dome, less prosperous.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

May 25, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »